Charles Barkley
- Thread starter Piranha
- Start date
He's there for entertainment value, and frankly, he entertains me. I love a guy who can say anything he wants with no repercussions. His college knowledge is limited but that's why they have Clark Kellogg on the set with him.
Pretty much. I feel like if you're a casual fan he's great, but if you follow closely he's awful.
He's super entertaining, first and foremost. So if you follow college or the NBA casually you'll never know that he's saying things that are just totally wrong and crazy and incorrect, and can just enjoy his wackiness.
If you follow closely, then he annoys the hell out of you with everything wrong he says and you can't get to the entertaining part of him.
Message board fans would probably hate him more than love him, if I had to guess.
Personally I like Barkley and thing he's hilarious. would you go as far to say he's a better golfer than broadcasters? LOL
He's great on the air since he says some of what he's thinking and he knows basketball.
He's a terrible golfer but fun to watch in the pro ams.
All in all he's about as good as most of the basketball announcers sitting in the "side" seats.
Not college basketball. And that's generally a problem when that's what you are supposed to be commenting on.
But as with your question the other day about why our local CBS is carrying WVU and not Pitt, you seem to not remember that the tourney coverage is now a joint endeavor between CBS and Turner so obviously you are going to get the biggest names from Turner sprinkled in... and Barkley is the biggest of all.
You think so now..... but in three weeks after seeing each of them 10 times during every game in this tournament .... you will be sick of them and wanting that car they're driving while singing "pina colada" to go over a cliff.
It's like Myron Cope or Mike Lange, you loved it or hated it, if you want deep intellectual analysis, and really care to dissect the cover 2 or the cover 3 or the matchup zone, these aren't the kind of people you enjoy.
Those two guys aren't very similar at all in how they did their jobs, starting with the fact that their job descriptions were/are completely different.
Not only that, but Myron actually knew the game of football very well and would have no problem at all dissecting a cover 2 defense. And Lange also understands the fine points of his game very well too, to the point where he used to be great, not good, great, at telling you what was going to happen before it actually did happen.
He's entertaining and off the wall, a nice change of pace who isn't afraid to deviate from the conventional wisdom.
I agree with that, which is why I generally like him when I watch the NBA show. The problem is that he really doesn't know college basketball at all, and to me that's kind of a big deal for someone who is supposed to be analyzing college basketball games. But to each his own.
Charles should be entertaining the masses as a guest on one of the 10 million sports talk shows on TV today. Not as a hoops analyst during the NCAA's biggest event.
Those two knew the game, but that wasn't really the attraction to those that really enjoyed them. They where more entertainers than anything, they made it fun, they didn't dissect it seriously like it was rocket science or mid east peace talks.
Oh there could be worse commercials that I can get sick of. At least those make me laugh the first 25 times or so.
But sometimes it works. He completely doesn't give into coaching reverence and assumptions that come with the Blue Blood programs. He calls it likes he sees it and though sometimes uninformed, it is refreshing.
The sad thing is, you got people like that doing this, and Bilas, Doris and Kara Lawson are relegated to off hour NCAA commentary and the NIT on ESPN.
Similar threads
